October 24, 2014, 12:57:00 PM

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Messages - jaayres20

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8
76
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Image Review Camera vs Lightroom
« on: May 29, 2012, 09:29:16 PM »
Why is it that my 5D3 can very quickly render a 100% view of my image and Lightroom takes a lot longer?  It isn't like I have a slow computer.  I have an imac with a 3Ghz processor and 16GB of RAM.  I don't even shoot RAW just JPEG.  I am considering connecting my camera to a TV or monitor to rate images before I import them into Lightroom.  Has anyone done that and if so how do you like it?

77
EOS Bodies / Re: Shoot JPEG again with 5D3
« on: May 29, 2012, 08:15:57 PM »

But why get yourself a 5D3 to shoot JPEG? There must have been a bazillion words written in the RAW vs JPEG debate and the pro-RAW conclusions remain totally valid.

Frankly it freaks me out to shoot JPEG on any camera other than my phone...the potential for post-pro grief makes it a non-starter. If you know for 100% certain your output requirements are modest, check out mRAW.


I bought 2 5D3s to shoot JPEG only.  I have shot RAW exclusively for years and edited probably over 100,000 RAW and JPEG images.  RAW is really only a benefit to me when I miss the exposure or WB.  Sure RAW captures a lot more information but if you don't need that information then it is a waste.  I shoot 20-30 weddings a year and probably shoot 3000-5000 pictures per wedding and a good JPEG is just as good as a RAW image unless your settings are off or you plan on doing extensive dodging or burning.  If you shoot manual and dial in the WB using the Kelvin color temperature and the WB shift to properly balance the color of the light source your JPEG is going to be as good if not better than if it were taken in RAW.       

Why shoot 5000 photos at one wedding?

Not saying what you are doing is wrong, I'm just genuinely curious. I usually take about 1000 per wedding, and I feel that is a lot. How many photos go into an album you make?

5000 photos would kill my workflow. It would take too much time. Time = money, so less photos means more money.

So, just curious why you shoot so many? How many keepers do you get out of that 5k?

I am usually shooting for 12 hours with few breaks. I deliver between 1200-1800 edited pictures for the client. It takes me about 8-10 hours to cull and edit a wedding.

78
Lenses / 85mm f/1.2 vs 200mm f/2
« on: May 29, 2012, 07:39:22 PM »
I want both of these lenses badly. I love a very shallow DOF and even use the Brenizer Method to get an even shallower DOF. My question is to those who have used both lenses which lens has better bokeh?  Or are they even comparable? 

79
That is simply not true.  The IQ of a good JPEG with a nailed exposure and manual WB is just as good as the IQ of a RAW processed image.
You shoot weddings - you've got it easy. Yes, I'm very well aware of the pressures of wedding photography, and the photography itself is way down on that list.

You've got all the time in the world (comparatively speaking) to put your subjects where you want them; to get the light right; to take a ton of frames, chimping between shots to check the histogram, to get the shot you want.

Come back to me when you've successfully tried shooting uncooperative, tiny, hyperactive birds that are inviariably in the wrong place for the (routinely crappy) light I deal with in the UK, and get back to me...

Out of a 10 hour day I have control of about 30-45 minutes to put my subjects where I want them and find the best light.  The rest of the time I am usually challenged by the worst lighting possible and I have no control of the subjects in relation to bad or worse light.  Most locations have mixed light sources and low or no light.  There is hardly ever time to do any chimping between shots because you can't miss anything important at a wedding and nobody is going to slow down while you check your histogram.  If you miss a shot you get to try again.  If I miss an important shot I could get sued.  I have respect for your photography and I have never tried it but don't bash mine because you think I have it easy.  I am sure if you ask 5 wedding photographers you know they will all tell you how difficult it is. 

80
Here is an image from a recent wedding that I shot in JPEG. There is nothing I could have gained from shooting this RAW and I consider it a very important client image that needs to have the highest IQ possible.

Yes that's a very nice image. No question. But keep shooting JPEG only and the day WILL come when you kick yourself hard for not shooting RAW. Why do you think photographers with the deepest experience shoot RAW? It's not to be cool. It's professional. RAW gives you a lot more headroom and that will either save the day for you in a big way or just mean better images for your client.

I remember once not getting a job I quoted on because I was too young. It was nothing to do with my portfolio or bad breath. The client said they only hire photographers aged 45 or over. Why? They never stuff up. Now that is a very narrow viewpoint, but there is something in it isn't there? Evolved professionalism has many subtle dimensions. Shoot RAW.

Paul Wright

I know there have been a few times I wished the image was RAW but those times have become fewer and further between.  One day it may come back to hurt me we will see.  There are, however, very experienced professional wedding photographers that shoot only JPEG.  Mike Colon is one of them and he shoots three million dollar celebrity weddings.  He charges over $20,000 for a wedding and he feels comfortable enough to shoot JPEG throughout the wedding.  I think it just comes down to a preference and style. 

81
i'm confused  :o , the jpeg files out of camera are soft mushy over processed and all round terrible. I cant see why you would want to use them when you have RAW format available. why buy a $3500 camera to shoot jpg files?
I dont quite get it

They are definitely not mushy and are very sharp indeed.  Why not shoot JPEG if you can get just as good results?  RAW is not magic and you have a lot of controls in the camera that will allow you process your JPEG with very precise results.   

82
Here is an image from a recent wedding that I shot in JPEG.  It is the screen shot of the before and after in lightroom so you can see what it looked like strait out of the camera and after the edits.  Even in the details of the extreem contrast of the almost blown out highlights on the white flower in her hair to the dark shadows on the suit JPEG captured all I needed.  I warmed it up just a tad and recovered a little of the highlights.  I could have recovered more but I wanted the image to look more natural.  There is nothing I could have gained from shooting this RAW and I consider it a very important client image that needs to have the highest IQ possible.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/jaayres/7252240410/#in/photostream   

83
Unless speed at the expense of IQ and control is your only priority, jpeg on a DSLR is a pointless option.

I usually put it like this: if you shoot jpeg you start with as much image "information" as you end up with if you shoot Raw and convert the files yourself.

I'll say this too: there's not an in-camera jpeg engine in existence that can process a Raw file as well as I can, and there never will be.

That is simply not true.  The IQ of a good JPEG with a nailed exposure and manual WB is just as good as the IQ of a RAW processed image.  If you don't need as much flexibility in post processing if you are correcting exposure and WB or creative dodging and burning then RAW it is a waste.  You can't use information you don't need.  If you need RAW that is great but it is not going to give you a better image just because it has more information.   

Lesser photographers than you are not able to "nail" exposure and WB 100% of the time....so RAW buys us the ability to recover that "great moment" that might have been lost.

BTW...a "nailed" shot takes almost no time to PP from RAW to JPEG or print.  It just "costs" a little storage and minimum time/effort....but the flexibility for us mortals is invaluable.

I am really not trying to elevate myself as being a superior photographer and saying that everyone who shoots RAW is in somehow incapable of taking great pictures strait out of the camera. I am just saying that it isn't necessarily better and does not create an image with better IQ.  JPEG is not just for speed and ease of storage and it can be just as good as RAW in a lot of circumstances. 

84
Unless speed at the expense of IQ and control is your only priority, jpeg on a DSLR is a pointless option.

I usually put it like this: if you shoot jpeg you start with as much image "information" as you end up with if you shoot Raw and convert the files yourself.

I'll say this too: there's not an in-camera jpeg engine in existence that can process a Raw file as well as I can, and there never will be.

That is simply not true.  The IQ of a good JPEG with a nailed exposure and manual WB is just as good as the IQ of a RAW processed image.  If you don't need as much flexibility in post processing if you are correcting exposure and WB or creative dodging and burning then RAW it is a waste.  You can't use information you don't need.  If you need RAW that is great but it is not going to give you a better image just because it has more information.   

85
I think JPEG is great and time saving. I don't think it should be used for critical client work such as weddings, portraits, landscapes, etc...

I never shoot JPEG, but I have to say that I'm considering more and more because it does save time. Even if that time doesn't add up to much in one day, it does over the span of years..

One of the top celebrity wedding photographers in the world Mike Colon shoots JPEG and he charges over $20,000 per wedding and I am sure his work would be classified as "critical client work".  I am a wedding photographer and when I started out I only shot RAW but as I got better I started to shoot part of the wedding in JPEG and now I shoot only in JPEG and have never looked back.  I have post processed hundreds of thousands RAW and JPEG files and I really don't see a benefit of shooting RAW unless you mis the exposure or WB big time.  If you take the time to figure out how to use the camera to it's fullest potential then you can make a great looking JPEG.  That includes not only nailing the exposure but really getting the correct WB.  I use Kelvin and I also adjust the WB shift for each setting I am in to properly correct color casts.  For example when I have a bride and groom in a park under the shade of green trees I bring in magenta to the image to balance the green cast the trees will leave.  I even take it a step further and adjust the picture style to get more or less contrast or correct the tone of color.  Doing those things you can make your JPEG look as good as a converted RAW file.  It takes a little time to get used to but I can make those adjustments in seconds now and it has also made me a better photographer because I see and read light better.  I am not saying that there is no reason for RAW and if you were going to be doing a lot of heavy editing or creative dodging and burning then RAW is going to help but for.  RAW may capture all of the data possible but if you don't need that data then it is a waste.  Just my opinion.     

86
Lenses / Re: 50mm 1.2
« on: May 16, 2012, 08:23:21 PM »
I thought the 1.2 was really slow to focus?  Or was that the 85mm?

That's the 85L.  The 50L is quite fast.
The 1.2 does not have a fast AF. The 1.4 focuses a lot faster and is actually sharper once you get past 1.8. Now the 1.2 has a lot better picture quality and better bokeh.

87
Technical Support / Lexar 64GB & 32GB SD cards
« on: May 10, 2012, 02:16:13 PM »
When I got 2 5D3s I bought Sandisk 64GB & 32GB cards and I also bought a Lexar Professional 64GB & 32GB cards.  I have noticed that when I put the Sandisks into my laptop the show up instantly on the desktop.  When I put the Lexar cards in the SD slot on my laptop they often don't show up the first time or take a minute or two.  Anyone else experience this?  I am just a little concerned there is something not right about them.  They seem to be fine in the camera.  Maybe I am overreacting.   

88
Canon General / Re: I have a question about wedding photography
« on: May 10, 2012, 12:01:40 PM »
Do you have a contract?  It is not a good practice to give out RAW images or unedited images?  Some might say your pictures are over edited but is that your style and the style the clients saw when they booked you?  The pictures you posted looked consistant which is important no matter the style.  I have shot almost 50 weddings and I have had a few people ask for the RAW files before they booked me but after I explained to them that my images are my brand and that I go to a lot of truble to make every image that comes form me consistant they understand and don't mention it again.  It would be like going into a restaurant and asking to go back into the kitchen to make your own meal.  I think you need to ask them very specifically what they don't like about the pictures because there are some people who are just a little controlling and are used to controlling everything.  It may not have mattered if you were Jose Villa they still might might of made the same request.  They may just not know that is something like that isn't typically done.  If they keep insisting you might try to offer further edites on a limited number of images.  No more than 25-50 but say that it would be very time consuming to go back through and re-edit all of the images and that if you did that for everyone you would have been out of business a long time ago.  Good luck and BTW I like the pictures you posted and think you have a lot going for you so don't let something like this set you back.  Just be very specific in the future so the client knows your expectations and you know their expectations.         

89
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D3 Rate button
« on: May 06, 2012, 04:53:22 PM »
I love the rate button. I use it at weddings to pick out my favorites throuought the day and then use the copy image feature to copy only my rated pictures to a new folder on the second card. I then copy those to my laptop and run a same day slideshow at the reception. I lay out a few buidness cards and everyone gathers around to see the pictures from the day. It books me weddings and makes me money. Doing the same thing before the rate button used to take me over an hour now it takes me ten minutes. Great feature.

90
EOS Bodies - For Stills / Re: 5D3 Dynamic Range
« on: May 05, 2012, 12:54:39 AM »
Well thanks to everyone for all of the input.  I guess since I really don't do a lot of post processing anyways then I am not missing out on much.  When you deliver 1000+ images per wedding then you try to limit the amount of time you are editing in lightroom.  The 5D3 may not be the best when it comes to DR but I have sure been very happy with the AF and low light performance.  The colors seem to better than the 5D2 as well.  Just more natural I guess.  Again I have never used a Nikon so maybe I don't know what I am missing there as well.         

Pages: 1 ... 4 5 [6] 7 8